It's got a dude on it instead of a woman. Less embarrassing for macho men to purchase, and it's in a different part of the store, away from all the "lady stuff." By the way, I don't recommend Nad's Hair Removal for men. It's nothing but a glorified waxing kit, and using it is incredibly inconvenient.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's more or less expensive. On principle I don't use female razors because they use the pink color as an excuse to jack up the price. ±KnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 15:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the points on which our weird-guys-in-funny-clothing have it better than yours. :p --ZooGuard (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Only one kind of them has it better. In the Eastern Orthodox churches there is a 'black priesthood' where celibacy is optional and which takes care of the churches, and 'white priesthood' where celibacy is mandatory and which takes care of monasteries. The white priesthood also forms the upper levels of the church hierarchy. --Tweenk (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing a page on this book, and would like some input as it's pretty odd right now. Wehpudicabok (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's odd because you seem to be reviewing it from the perspective of a a fairly mainstream philosopher, not a logician. It's grounding in "how to do" logic is perhaps one of the main sections. bomination 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My NCSoft Master Account just got permablocked, because according to them I've been trying to sell it (which I'll hasten to add, I fuckin' haven't. The only way anyone's getting my Guild Wars account is from my cold, dead, fingers). I might have been able to refute that allegation if their email detailing this hadn't looked like every fucking phishing email I get (usually 6 or 7 a week) from supposed MMO companies trying to steal my login details. Seriously, what fucking asshat of a company sends out an unsolicited email these days that says 'click on this link and enter your login details'. To rub salt on the wound, I only pre-ordered Guild Wars 2 a couple of weeks ago and tied it to that account, so that could easily be £40 down the drain.
And just to really make things better, their internal support system is broken so I can't appeal the block directly, I can't see the status of the emails I've sent in, and, of course, I can't log in to the account to check it that way either.--Jabba de Chops 12:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Get more email accounts, preferably at least one with unlimited aliases and then use "throwaway" addresses. The addresses I used on major WoW forums, wikis, etc. are all generated that way. All of them are either actively run by bad guys, their administrators are paid off, the people who own the hardware have a knife to their throats or they get backdoored by script kiddies who want some money. So they all‡ end up sending me these phishing scams (and in the case of the forums they happily deleted my posts mentioning what happened) but they can't touch me because (A) Blizzard got sick of this crap and added a one-time-password feature which I have enabled and (B) I can see by the To: address that it's not sent to the address I gave Blizzard so it's got to be a fake. Thus, any real emails from Blizzard stand out immediately.

‡ Yes all, including big famous sites like Elitist Jerks and Wowhead.

Now, NCsoft isn't as careful as Blizzard, but you can do some of their housework for them and make life harder for the bad guys by having multiple email accounts and not using the "real" account to deal with probably scumbags, random forum owners, etc. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar thing happened to me, was permabanned by EA. Several hundred dollars worth of software ruined, and all because I posted a link to ED on one of their forums.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference brx, is you did something legiti9matly wrong; he3 didn't. Now, Threaten to sue, that tends to make companies freak out--il'DictatorMikal 15:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the good news is, I've got the account back. Time to start changing emails, again. The email I was using was secure, right up to the point PSN got hacked last year. Kinda missed the NCSoft account on the frantic resetting of other sites email and password changes.--Jabba de Chops 15:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how much the guys who have to deal with hysterical kids not being able to MMORPG get paid? Not enough, but you'd think it'd have to be a lot. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, whenever I look in my main gmail account's spam folder, I'm amazed at how well it seems to be filtering out fake Blizzard emails. Q0 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Forty of one hundred of the most recent edits on the site are related to Brx or Rob Smith. Never mind getting past CP, we need to learn to get past these two guys. They sure have us wrapped around their little fingers. --Revolverman (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, you can't make people ignore people they don't like. Sadly I don't think a lot of people here even want to. --84.158.86.152 (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy talking to Rob and have kept my interactions with brx to a minimum. AceModerator 22:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If i could find a way to hide their edits themselves alongside the recen t changes, i would; but i cant so hiding them from RC doesnt help--il'DictatorMikal 22:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you use enhanced recent changes, Revolverman. That will reduce the amount of edits you see to mine and Rob's talk pages. All edits to a same page will be put under a tab, and opening that tab is optional. Try it out, see for yourself. You can always undo it. Preferences->Recent Changes->check the box that says Use enhanced recent changes (requires JavaScript) . --"Shut up, Brx." 03:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

he could just hide all edits by you or to your talkpage; using the much simpler x.js--il'DictatorMikal 03:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could try and convince Mikalos, Ace, and others to leave me and Rob alone, you can try and convince me and Rob to leave, or you can ignore it all and use enhanced recent changes. The last one is easiest, the first is the moral choice. --"Shut up, Brx." 03:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I like rob too; i just don't ejoy having to talk to him after a while--il'DictatorMikal 03:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Brx, I would love the first one. I really would. I suffered deeply by bulling in school, and I would never want that visited on anyone else. It IS a two way street. Spend a month or two just doing clean up edits or work, and let the air clear, and let the bad taste get out of everyone's mouths. It will also prove to everyone if ,after a long time of being productive, they continue to harass you that is is them, and not you. --Revolverman (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

He left for a bloody month. The place was quiet, even a tad jovial.ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

but i was reading comments on maurice sendak's obit on the beeb and I made the the mistake of looking at the worst rated. Sure the comments were voted down, but still - what a bunch of pricks. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So I was watching a review on youtube by some brit, and he said as a side note that the drugs (medicine, not illicit) he'd taken last week had knocked him for six. I googled, and found it other places, all meaning some sense of "wiped me out", "made me sick", "emptied my tank" etc. But i was more curious what the expression comes from/refers to. anyone? --Godot 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cricket. A "six" is the number of runs (points) you score when you hit the ball over the boundary without it hitting the ground first. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, although hitting a six is the "home run" of cricket in the expression "being hit for six" the speaker is the ball, not the batsman. therefore it is not a "good thing". Bad Faith (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. When I first heard this expression I assumed it was related to "six feet under" (dead), i.e., something that hit you so hard it nearly killed you. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar, the Indian cricket god knocking some one for six--Buscombe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May I point out that "CP" stands for "cheeze pizza"(child pornography), although only /b/tards and deepwebz surfers use it much. Makes me snigger every time I see it here though.Z3100x (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they got rid of all the eyecandy in the free version, making it look only slightly more appealing than if it was running on command line. Why must everything nice be ruined? Vulpius (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. It was petty bitching, but when a program looks less appealing than Excel I just can't help myself. Anyway, I downgraded to an older version and will just ignore the update prompts from now on. Hooray. Vulpius (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe the audacity of these people, standing there in front of someone who does "science" for a living, and telling him how "science is done". I would not stand next to an Imam and say "preaching is done this way". I would not stand next to a chef and tell her the theory behind being a "chef". --Godot 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm barely 'decently read' in this field, much less any kind of an expert, but I bristle at the idea that we can find athieism or religion in "the mind" in the way these articles seem to be doing. That our minds want to give cause to everything, is one thing - and i suspect a very real thing. But to say we can "find" atheism or thesim leave me cold. Of course it's cultural, it's how we are raised, adn what things we experience in life, and how those around us tell us to interpret what we experience. even so-called "rationality" is a creation in some sense; a perspective of how to interpret thigns, that is not as "rational" as we sell it. "Rationality", beyond such laws as 3*3=9, or 2+2=22 which can be proven, without doubt, by anyone trying, "Rational statements" are not proveable. Almost ever. But are still still based on the way we deal with input, which peices of information we select to inform us, and in some ways, how our day went. :-) Religion will be the same. you believe or do not believe far more by how others help you frame your world, than any inborn part of your brain, i suspect. it is of course, just suspicion.--Godot 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Colorado Republicans won't even give over that much. Knowing our state house and senate were ready to put CU into law this week, they fillibustered on another law to prevent this one from coming to a vote before the end of the session yesterday. oh. joy. 10 republicans ruined a vote on 30 different laws, to prevent one group of people from getting some access to legal recognition of their identity and their right to a "union". I hate that kind of tactic. Especially when they then turn around and say things like "respect the vote of the people. people want Prop 8".--Godot 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We have an anti marriage law (might be constutional amendment, bad of me not to know), but it didn't specify that you could not have CUs. The majority of Colorado (which means, the urban centers - we are 'purple'. nice dem urban centers, and the rest of the state is good ol republican... sigh) is for some kind of protection for gay unions. but the minority knows how to work the system. Godot 22:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I know many of us joke about tasty fetuses, and the importance of cooking them well, etc. But WTF. China is actually DOING it? I know i should be more culturally sensitive, and not belive it's every chinese person, but with this, and the rhino horns, and killing the rarest of turtles, monkeys, tigers, etc. it's really hard to care. here.— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs

Color me very skeptical. Its not like SK enjoys slandering China or anything. --Revolverman (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Er... cultural sensitivity isn't a binary state. It isn't a choice between "they can do anything, i have no right to be outraged" and "they should be exactly like me!". I think your observation would be better phrased as "it's interesting to what extent people are culturally sensitive, someone ought to do a study on that or something". ONE / TALK 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

By what standard would we condemn some of the objectionable activities of other peoples, while writing others off as "cultural differences"? ListenerXTalkerX 02:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I do find this story slightly difficult to believe without other verification. The article itself also states that it's not official government policy to do this.

I heard it on BBC news, and they were interviewing someone from the US (who's name I've now forgotten) who was part of the lab studying the pills, trying to find out of they contained any extremely dangrous bacteria, given the conditions they were produced in. He was talking about types of bacterias found, and testable ages of the fetus depending on the type of differentiation in the cells (ie., precentage of stem cells vs., differentiated cells). So the pills are real. And he specifically talked that China is investigating the souce, so it's not like anyone is claiming China govt is involved. --Godot 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are in the UK, (or do nefarious and illegal things on the internet), there is a BBC show called "How to grow a planet", that is a geologist's look at the role of plants on sculpting the actual earth as we know it. I'm putting it here cause one thing the plants did (that i really didn't know about), was to virtually "create" what we would call the modern water cycle, since they were taking moisture from the ground and respiring it into the air, making clouds. Or, you knwo, God did it, the flood split open and water came from lava!--Godot 14:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The water "Receded", thats where it went. --il'DictatorMikal 15:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Side note

The lunar bukkake hypothesis ranks first place with the distant starlight problem as the most sure fire dead giveaway indicator that creationism is pseudo-science. I mean someone a bit scientifically naive could bet taken in by some of the other stuff, but I don't see how even a 5th-grader could be fooled by these arguments.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As a former creationist, atleast amongst the people i kniow who are creationists; i only heard of that theory when i came here--il'DictatorMikal 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

really? It's at AIG, and I hear it all the time. Under a different name, obviously.Godot 16:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I gathered; those here who voiced anything say god just made the asteroids and comets too. no need for anything insane--il'DictatorMikal 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The lunar bukkake hypothesis has a proper name in "mainstream" creationist circles? I'd heard the wacky "waters above" explanation for the Kuiper Belt, but not something that would closely resemble the lunar bukkakehypothesis - what was it you saw that looked like it? - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

David, I think it is AiG solution to the distant starlight problem that circulates in mainstream creationism. As far as I can see, only one YouTube poster has proposed the lunaticar bukkake hypothesis.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the lunar B hypo was the idea that after the flood, the water shot from the earth to the moon, making all the craters. Godot 18:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Aig on Moon craters

Answers in Genesis addresse the issue of moon craters here [2]. It's based on meteors, and more subtle than the LBH, but just as bad. A scientific rebuttal (to not necessarily AiG's exact position) is at [3]--WickerGuy (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

why exactly are you making all your comments bolded?--il'DictatorMikal 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm making the headers to my comments bolded, not the entire comment.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

but WHY, all it does is take up unneeded spaceil'DictatorMikal 22:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So, with the NC loss of freedom going on; a canadian friend asked how the "some states allow, dont care or disallow gay marriage/alternative name" works if you go to a different state with a different attitude, and i'm a bit rusty so could somebody give me a decent explanation?--il'DictatorMikal 05:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Every U.S. state, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is supposed to recognize the others' "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings." How this applies to marriage licenses is unclear, but in 1996, the Gingrich Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which explicitly says that no state can be forced to recognize another state's gay marriage. Many states, as we are seeing now, do not. ListenerXTalkerX 05:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How it works is you can marry same-sex in some states, but your marriage wouldn't be recognised at all in other states, so you wouldn't get next of kin privileges there, and couldn't divorce in those states either, since they wouldn't recognise that you were married in the first place. So there'd be nothing to stop you remarrying (to the opposite sex), but as soon as you crossed state lines to somewhere that recognised your first marriage, you would be a bigamist. Great system USA. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 06:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to the EU, which is currently in the middle of a financial crisis because there is no way to set any sort of common fiscal policy? ListenerXTalkerX 06:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

All right; let us back up. By "great system" I assume you mean the U.S.'s federal system, whereby the states retain a degree of internal legislative autonomy, thus allowing them to have different marriage laws? ListenerXTalkerX 07:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean the USA's post-DOMA system in relation to same-sex marriage specifically (the subject of this thread), as illustrated in the hypothetical example I gave above. If you disagree with my criticism, why not tell me why you think I'm wrong. If instead you have to respond to any criticism of the US made by a foreigner with a completely unrelated criticism of Europe (which is what your comment looks like), then you're just a being small-minded jingoistic dick. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To what part of that "post-DOMA system" specifically do you object? ListenerXTalkerX 08:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The part that allows some jurisdictions to disregard some marriages & civil unions made in some other jurisdictions. See my comments above. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the U.S.'s federal system that gives states a degree of legislative autonomy. Now can you see the parallel with the legislative autonomy of EU member states in the matter of fiscal policy (or marriage law, for that matter — Ireland and Malta, for example, not recognizing foreign divorces)? ListenerXTalkerX 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't see a parallel, because the EU is not a nation. It does not & should not model itself on the USA. Back on topic, plenty of civil rights issues in the US have been settled at a federal level without states having the option to exempt themselves. A federal law recognising same-sex marriage could do the same; instead DOMA does the opposite & recognises only man-woman marriage at federal level, while some states may define it otherwise. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So allowing different laws in different jurisdictions is fine for the EU, not for the U.S. Right. ListenerXTalkerX 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if these comments are correct, then state's and Congress can make exceptions to the full faith and credit clause as a matter of public policy. I'll also add that states ignore contracts across state lines all the time; Oregon won't even recognize noncompete contracts from out-of-state unless they meet a set of strict standards. RadioactiveMisanthrope 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to comment about your "post DOMA" world. That's a bit of a revisionist point of view. FF&C does not have the inherant power you seem to think it does. it SHOULD, perhaps, but it doesn't. Interracial marriages were not accept by FF&C until the USSC forced them to accept Full Faith. "children" of 14-18 cannot be taken across state lines to marry, if it is only a way to circumvent age requirements in their own state. the Home state has a right to deny the marriage happened. Adoptions that happen in other states can be ignored (though usually, for this very reason, states will 'set them aside') if other state's rights have been circumvented. A biggomus marriage, legal for a time in Utah, was not recognized in other states. So the piece mail view of gay marriage is very much a part of our american tradition. and the USSC, well, maybe not THIS Robert's controlled Court, but one soon, will say "too bad you biggots, deal with it". Godot 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not Full Faith and Credit that was used to decide Loving v. Virginia, but the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, polygamy in Utah was ended by a federal legislative ban, the Edmunds Act. ListenerXTalkerX 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And either of those have what to do with the price of tea in China? The argument is about the power of FF&C. Godot 04:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you do not want a certain irrelevant point discussed in a conversation, refrain from bringing it up. ListenerXTalkerX 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that was something you did not want to talk about. ListenerXTalkerX 05:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And exactly WHERE did I bring up loving? Or is that the only interracial marriage there ever was? I was talking interstate recognition of other states interracial marriages. Polygamous Utah marriages were questioned all the time here in Colorado, and if the original poster was right about FF&C , they would have had to be recognized, but Colorado did not recognize them. Thanks for playing, though. Godot 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If not Loving v. Virginia, what were you talking about? If I recall correctly, that was the only time the "USSC" interfered with state anti-miscegenation laws, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been employed for that purpose. ListenerXTalkerX 04:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping the New and Shiny Obama will push for a federal law that forces states to at least fully recognize marriages enacted in other states. ħuman 03:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Huzzah! now if only that meant something--il'DictatorMikal 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It actually does - cause once it's out in the open, the White house (and by extension the Party, the Legislature) will get down in teh dirt about what a marriage is, and why it matters. --Godot 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

and nothing will come, because the people opposing it will do all they can to stop it from happening. --il'DictatorMikal 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And you need only take a look at demographics to know that in 10 years, this will all be a memory. Acceptance of gay people as just 'the neighbors with the great looking lawn" raises with each "generation". That is, if 80 % of people over 50 dislike gay marriage, it's 60% for over 40, and 40% for over 30, and 10% for over 20. This is one issue that kids just don't give a shit about, and they will start to vote. --Godot 20:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's honestly not a huge deal. The Obama Administration already openly supports repeal of DOMA and refuses to defend it in court. And if I may, marriage equality is really not the most important federal LGBT civil rights agenda item. Important, yes, but not as important as, say, a non-discrimination act for employment, housing, etc. The hierarchy of needs and all that. AcerBlue 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprized you of all people, would say that. It's a HUGE deal. Civil Unions means 2nd class citizens. He's never admitted that, just held on dearly to that position. This finally opens the door to real discussions. When a President says somethign, especially knowing he risks votes from the black community that is larger than the gay community, it is something that shoves issues onto the front page. People are talking, not just those who are in this issue day to day, but our mom's and dads, and Uncle Joe about what it really means to be gay and unable to marry. What marriage means. what equality REALLY means. it's a huge deal.Godot 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, the last time you were denied a place to sleep or a job based on your sexual orientation/gender identity, was marriage the first thing that came to mind when you thought about what's most important for equality? The bourgeois gay establishment made marriage its #1 priority because they didn't have to worry about much else (besides being discharged from the armed forces I guess). Housing, employment, public accommodations, etc. are things the undesirables (the poor, the people of color, the transgender people, etc.) have to deal with, not rich white dudes a la Modern Family.

This isn't to say that marriage is completely unimportant, of course. In the U.S. there's a lot of social connotations around marriage. But more important are the benefits, like hospital visitation rights and property laws and such - not necessarily the name of the union. LiquidBlue 22:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)It may not be important in and of itself, but I think marriage equality is a good indication of the direction LGBT rights is headed when it comes to public acceptance. It's a much "easier" issue than others to tackle because it's so simple to implement. Cow...Hammertime! 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is going to be at odds with all of you but I support civil unions over gay marriage. I certainly don't agree with Civil Unions means 2nd class citizens. What garbage. AceModerator 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be able to get "married"? I don't understand the objection. I know it's not quite as bad, but it has the ring of "separate but equal" thing to it. Cow...Hammertime! 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Now if the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 I'm going to high five some gay and lesbian Americans. --Raga Man (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is the argument that marriage is a religious concept; while a "civil union" is a secular version. the problem is they arent equal in status--il'DictatorMikal 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A civil union is marriage with a different name (at least in NZ it is). Civil Unions have all the same legal protections and rights. I am quite traditional in my views on marriage. AceModerator 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In france, the govt recognizes CU only. religions have marriages. Taht's fine. but unfortunatly the US does not have CU as it's marriage union. it has marriages. giving one thing to one group, and something differnt to another is just discrimination.

It's hardly garbage, any more than saying "black kids get to go to community college, isn't that enough?" If you are told you CANNOT be married, it instantly means you are not good enough for marriage. It's not that CU are bad in and of themselves, but there can never be separate but equal institutions. If you say to someone "we are in a civil union" or "this is my partner" it has a host of associated assumptions with it. "It's not permanent", "it's not a real commitment", etc. Marriage is what it is. You say "this is my husband", people understand that means a supposed life time commitment. The issue is not that CU are bad. it's that denying someone one thing, but handing them something different and saying "it's the same" means they are not good enough to have the first. It means they are different. unworthy. "you cannot have MY ice-cream, cause only the right people can have it. but you can have 'frozen sweetened milk product" which is clearly the same thing. Godot 21:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's garbage because it is the exact same thing as marriage and if you are petty enough to complain and view yourself as a second class citizen because of it well bully for you - get the fuck over it, get a civil union because that is, for all intents and purposes, marriage. If you get stuck on it because it is a different word then there is something wrong with you AceModerator 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, why the hell should we make another thing that's exactly the same with a different name? It's not "traditional"? Cow...Hammertime! 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ace, it IS NOT the same thing, not im america; it may be where you live but that isnt relevent for americans.--il'DictatorMikal 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think herein lies the heart of our disagreement: in NZ it is the same thing. Gay's are happy, heterosexuals are happy and we just move on and get on with our lives. AceModerator 21:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ace. It's exactly the same, so let's call it something different (because we're not petty like you). Occasionaluse (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not "for all intents and purposes, marriage". It is something that you are given as a consolation prize. You are simply not good enough to have a marriage. that makes you second class. Period. Let's do it for black people. "you cannot marry your white wife, but you can have a civil union". you're ok with that? "you cannot marry if you are muslim, but you can have a civil union". We would be up in arms about discrimination. but it's ok to do the same with Civil Unions? that's BS, it's bigotry plan and simple. not "deal with it". why should we "deal with" bigotry when we can change it? at least state sanctioned bigotryGodot 21:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In the US, at least, the first amendment lets you call it whatever you want. If you have a civil union, you can have a wedding, call your partner "spouse", "husband", "wife", whatever, tell everyone you're married and guess who can stop you? No one. For that reason I think the semantic difference is not worth making a huge fuss over. The bigger issue with the North Carolina vote was that it struck down civil unions as well as marriage. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dick but also need to reiterate that here in NZ there is no fuss about it. My friend had a civil union, is in a civil union partnership, adopted a child and she is over the moon and lives her life. Your whole bigotry argument isn't "factual" it's opinion and one which isn't uttered on this side of the planet. AceModerator 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think both sides give people too much credit. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

good for New Zealand; the problem? AMERICA is not new zealand, itrs a country trapped by the religious--il'DictatorMikal 21:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, America is different, I already conceded that. But I am curious what WFG would think if she was here in NZ where there is no social conservatism impacting on the rights of homosexuality. Would she also kick up a fuss about terminology? AceModerator 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In typical fashion, Ace is being illogical. He says it's the exact same, that it doesn't matter...but protests anyway because he's actually a fucking dolt. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Idiots like Ace should come up with other euphemisms for other agreements/contracts entered into by gays. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?

You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.
Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be... ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...
...butt buddies. --Revolverman (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the government shouldn't recognize marriage (a religious rite) at all; they can get married if they want, but it should be separate from government; and if they want the government benefits currently given to marriage they should get a (secular) union or whatever you wanna call it. --il'DictatorMikal 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Question for Ace - can gays get MARRIED in NZ? if not, then no, it's not the same. If you say to anyone, "you cannot have the same toy as me" you are saying "cause you are not as good as me". if gays cannot get married, give me one reason they cannot. one simple reason. and that will answer your own question for you.Godot 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So they can't get "married", because... wikipedia? Cow...Hammertime! 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That was the background. The one simple reason is because there is no pressure on the government to change the law. The simple reason is that here, specifically in NZ, the law works, the populace is happy and there is no move to change. AceModerator 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reason against gay "marriage". That's a reason for not changing the status quo in NZ. These are not the same thing. Cow...Hammertime! 22:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not against gay marriage, in NZ there is gay marriage. It is called a civil union and has all the same rights that come with marriage. AceModerator 22:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For a smart guy, you are relly missing this. if it's not called marriage, it's not marriage. it's something else. And on it's own, fine. I like CUs. but if a couple of gays want to marry, they cannot. cause they are not straight. they are not good enough. I'm sure gays right now are happy, cause it's better than nothing, but i assure you, in 10 years when other nations are having marriage, they will say "hey, why are we seperated". what is so wrong with gays that we cannot share what our moms and dads have? You think that's a petty thing, but how a society separates people matter. "this is the gay bus". is that next? And here we have "gay sallaries" and "gay stores", and "gay voter lines" and "gay pension". this really makes sense to you? separate gays from others but say "but it's still the same thing". If it is the same thing, why does it need it's own special name?Godot 22:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You can always have a civil union, call it a marriage, and, presto! you're married. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Like Dick said..and I am not missing anything. I am traditional in my approach on this. I view it the same as a gentleman's club shouldn't suddenly be forced to have to accept woman. The doesn't make me bigoted, stupid or anything else. AceModerator 22:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thing is marriage between a man and a woman and marriage between two men is not exactly the same thing purely and simply because many people, especially of a conservative bent, define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter how often you shout at them that it's bigotry or whatever, that is what defines marriage for them. Gays, they will say, are not banned from marriage because they can still get married to someone of the opposite sex. It is not the same as a gay pension or a gay salary. While you may insist that this is semantics, they will say rightbackatcha - if it's only semantics, what's wrong with gays having a CU with the same legal status?

Personally I don't have much of a view one way or another. What I do notice is that ramming the idea down conservatives' throats that marriage between a man and woman is exactly the same as a marriage between two men (or women) when, by their definition of the word, they aren't, is counter-productive. As is calling them stupid or bigotted when there is a workable perhaps hopefully temporary compromise in CUs.

That's a quite depressing view. Also I don't see why somebody should accept that definition, especially if those that want marriage only to be between man and woman are legislating it. Why does your (general your, not you Ajkgordon) personal believe of what marriage should merit a law banning some from it, if allowing others to be married doesn't hurt you in the slightest. It's like saying streets are only for cars and sidewalk are only for people that walk. If nobody get's hurt (empty street) it just doesn't matter were you walk. --Raga Man (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd buy that, except this isn't about "man woman = marriage" it's about bigotry, and "lifestyles" and "icky gays". why do i say that? cause of my post below. Colorado is presented with a chance to give gays CUs that like NZ would be equal in all but name. 10 republicans representing religious conservatives blocked it. if it really were a compromise, fine, but we heard how "all we want is to protect marriage", around the nation, but as soon as CU language was started, they said "no no no" and "that's a gateway drug status to marriage". when you are fighting bigotry, it doesn't matter what the name you use, they don't want you to exist. period.Godot 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not call CUs a compromise, I would call them an interim step to Gay marriage. All the gay folk i know who entered into CUs/Civil partnerships or whatever it is in your parts of the world refer to them as marriage. not one got down on bended knee and asked their beloved to civil parner them, they asked for marriage. legally it may amount to the same thing. Socially it stil inferior. news of joining announced as your marriage will always be met with 'it's a civil partnership'. Psychologically, it will not be the same thing. It will always be in the back of your mind that your relationship is not quite as valid, not quite legit as a the hereros. I thing gay rights have come a long way, hard battles have fought and won, but even in today even in more liberal parts of the world, there is a still an undercurrant of low level homophobia - not out right abuse but in nuances of speech, image in media, the use of 'gay' as some bad, detached from what it means. I think the status of marriage in society represents the pinnacle of acceptance and legitamacy for any relationship, and I see no reason why gay folk should be deprived of this. It would be wrong to accuse all who are against gay marriage as homophobes or bigots or whathave you, but lets face it, the mose vocal are. i am sorry if demanding marriage when we have be thrown the bone of CU seems petty, but years of explicit and implicit condemnation and abuse tends to make one a sensitive. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is even if/when gay marriage becomes legally indistinguishable from hetero marriage, the anti-gay marriage people will still say, "They're not really married because they're gay." It takes time to change social mores. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does take time, and marriage will help move things along. But is not just about changing how society sees us, marriage will help change how we see ourselves AMassiveGay (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Amen. What I think could really help the religious conservatives in this is seeing that the real poison to traditional marriage is not the gays. They might just see committed gay couples and compare them to the celebrity five days marriages and recognise the latter as an infinitely worse abrasion of their beloved institution. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Government should get the fuck out of marriage, and let churches do the marrying. There should only be civil unions.--talk 23:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that really the way it is? The government recognizes the legal elements of the union, which you can achieve via a religious or non-religious path. The government doesn't give a shit about the ceremony, it's the paperwork you file with the municipality that makes it legal in their eyes. Plenty of people are married without any religion in the ceremony and it's still a marriage. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was married in France and we had two ceremonies. A church wedding has no legal status in France so we had to have a civil ceremony as well presided over by the mayor. Standard practice. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's why I'm for 100% Civil Unions only. let people decide their own labels. The govt does need some way to help people with things like immigration, child custody, distribution of property after a union disolves, etc. So something is needed. But CUs let two anyone who wants to make a legal commitment to each other for the time in which they have that commitment, and gives some rights and responsiblities to the union should be open to anyone. Two single moms living together, one the care giver in exchange for the other working and her insurance; two old men who are eachother's social support; a gay couple; a trans couple (might be nice not to have to shove them into 'gay or straight' which i suspect does not apply).... but the US will likely never go there. that's too much like Socialist Europe or something --Godot 23:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was married in what could be considered a civil union. There was not one mention of religion, there was no priest and no church. I call myself married but I could just as easily call it a union. The same as a homosexual. AceModerator 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How often do you get told you are not really married when you say you are? My brother was recently married in a similar sounding situation to your own. I have never heard anyone refer to it as anything but married - they are married. everyone i know who has entered into a same sex has always had someone say 'you mean a civil partnership'. always. and even by people i wouldn't call bigots or even just mean spirited. I am far from the marrying kind, but that does something to your psyche. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I promised i was going to drop this, but.... "same as a homosexual". fine, for the atheist homos. What about the homosexual who is married in his church, with all the "Praise God" and "amens" he can find. a real live methodist wedding. should he have a "marriage"? --Godot 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (PS, how do we put an edit point in? I've seen them, but never used them)

If I've observed the difference between US-crap and ROW-stuff, it's here. Paul McCartney got a "civil union" way back when. The Commonwealth is so far ahead of the US in regards to this and some other topics it's hopeless for their people to comment on US politics. In the US, each State in the Federal Union makes its own laws regarding "marriage". And they have been ugly. While USians can get "civil unions" (ie, "married" by a JOP), it's still called marriage. It's a mess, and I am so happy for this week's political news on the topic. In other news, my idiot relatives who moved to Dixie for the lack of winter are surprised that their Confederate neighbors are bigots. ħuman 03:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the "marriages are for religions" argument appearing further up in this thread. Weddings often take place in a religious setting & with religious language etc. but the function they serve is - and always has been - primarily a civil one. There's no reason why secular unions should have to retitled something else & can't be called marriage. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It seems pretty clear to me that, historically, marriage and religion were separate in many societies. Especially so since we're usually talking about arranged marriage, which was economically driven before it was religiously driven. As far as Christianity goes, at some point church leaders got the idea of 'blessed' unions being preferable, and that caught on to the point we see today. Of course, if they want marriage to be recognized as a 'religious institution between a man and a woman', then modern supposedly-secular governments (like that of the US) have no business being involved in the first place.

Like Godot and others have mentioned, having two different types of marriage is just a way to say 'I'm better than you' - even when the benefits are equal. There's absolutely no reason to have separate entities for different types of couples otherwise, unless you're just kowtowing to religious sensibilities (which is just a 'religion deserves respect' cover for the fact they want to think of marriage as superior to civil unions as well). Q0 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say something beforehand. I am a strong advocate of marriage rights, and I personally think it's a great thing that Obama spoke out in favor of this, and will only increase my support of him.

However, was this politically the best thing to do? Previously, Obama was known for being ambiguous on this issue, but quietly making advancements in LGBT rights through things like ending the defense of DOMA and ending DADT (there's countless other examples). Now though, he will have problems with religious voters. This will primarily impact the hispanic voting bloc. With the hispanics on his side, Obama could actually win states like Texas and Arizona. But with his support of gay marriage, that might turn away hispanic voters. So from a political standpoint, this may not have been his best move. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

BoN signing in here, and probably breaking the page cos I know nothing about Wiki formatting, go me: it's possible, though, that this will revitalize his flagging youth vote and motivate people to get out there that were otherwise too disappointed to go cast a ballot this year. Just speculation.

There are certainly advantages that the President has by doing this, specifically in the gay and youth demographics. However, I think that the hispanic vote is possibly more valuable. Most gay people and youth voters support Obama already, but the hispanic vote only leans towards him. Winning the hispanics has the potential of getting him states like Texas and Arizona. Politically, it would have probably been better for Obama to have announced his support after the election. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait until next month. Obama could get way out in front of the Hispanic vote in so many ways... I think we are seeing a really good campaigner mounting the beginning of a really good campaign here. I hope. ħuman 03:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Win him Texas". A Black democrat is not going to win texas, i can assure you of that. --il'DictatorMikal 03:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done the math. Texas has had an astonishing jump in hispanic population in recent years, so much that whites only make up 45% of the vote. If Obama wins 90% of the black/asian vote (which is some 15% of the population), 60% of the hispanic vote (which is some 35% of the population), and just one third of the white population, he wins 50% of the total vote. Of course, this is assuming roughly proportional turnout, but given Romney's weakness, I wouldn't be surprised if conservative turnout in that state goes down enough to tip it into Democratic favor. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Did he win it in 2008u? the numbers of voters havent changed much in 4 years i would assume--174.71.98.88 (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He is very likely to lose the black vote, with this move. Not because they will vote for the other guy, but because they simply won't go out to the polls. In a tight race, that would make a huge difference.Godot 04:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If Obama even comes close to winning Arizona, it's over already. Look at 2008: he almost got AZ, but won the national vote by far.

I've already seen someone on facebook saying they've never voted but will now vote Obama, and I bet that's common. Cow...Hammertime! 15:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No way in hell will he lost the black support with this. He's always been pro gay rights, and most african americans don't rate this issue as one of high importance. The latino population is even more deeply religious, and the recent contraception thing may alienate Catholic voters.

Obama did OK in Texas last election, but the latino population has substantially increased, and the latino and black population combined exceed the non-hispanic white population. Assuming proportional turnout, a win wouldn't be too hard there. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I was considering it. However, Romney's sheer boringness as a candidate has a chance of driving down turnout on the other side as well, so we'll have to see. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion - have 'a place' where passers-through can post comments and suggestions for inclusion on RW - which may already have articles or justify the creation of new articles etc: ie one step up from the sandbox). If the entry has not been developed within (a week/fortnight) it gets huffed. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is more for discussions - the intent is the equivalent of a sticky-notes board rather than 'a place to drink slivovitch and fall down.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "this" above was a link to RationalWiki:To do list. Which is exactly what you describe, though most of the people who bother to use it keep adding things instead of writing new articles.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I do keep an eye on it, but so much of it seems to be nothing except "BUT WE NEED AN ARTICLE ON THIS GUY!!". Which isn't massively inspiring to write about, to be honest. bomination 16:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Who actually likes Larping and Arging? From what I know, I find it odious, but that's my opinion. My friends are complete larpers and they are bugging me about "why do I hate gamers so much".RandonGeneration (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I used to LARP until I got tired of it. If you think people have no self control when it comes to NORMAL roleplaying characters, LARP characters can be even worse. There is nothing like standing around an empty field for an hour an a half while people keep faffing about because their backstory is obviously so important it should take up all of our time. Even worse when they claim to be 'stunningly handsome dashing rogue' when they happen to be a pimply, fat idiot with no sense of modesty. Basically, when it's fun, it's fun. But when it's tiresome, it's really, really tiresome. Especially in settings that use somewhat questionable combat rules. There's this guy I know that rolled a character that's a gnome, meaning his hitbox is his chest only, to simulate being small. But he's a 6 foot tall guy with enormous reach. His weapon is a special enchanted staff that deals the same damage as a blade with even a small tap, that he bought with in-game money and thus broke all combat encounters because he doesn't actually have to use any skill; a tiny tap from afar at the end of his three foot arms plus six foot staff reach, at any angle (even a non-fatal weak tap that wouldn't have so much as cut you even if it was a razorblade was suddenly the same as running you through. I was never a bad fighter, though I wasn't a savant... but it was impossible to practice because everything was so painfully broken all the time. ±KnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 21:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! All my friends are up on my ass about it still thoughRandonGeneration (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, vandalbreak, what do I add to localsettings.php? Furthermore, if I try reqiure once blah, I get a database error saying that .vand table does not exist.RandonGeneration (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really sad because I really liked it when it worked. I always made relatively 'normal' characters... mostly because when a character STARTS THEIR ADVENTURE they shouldn't have all of the bling and developments of characters that have finished an adventure; why bother with enormous enormous backstory when that means that you basically are saying that you already finished your adventure with nobody else around to play it with you? I RP through fantasy stories both tabletop and freeform, and it pains me to have such bad experiences like I had at LARP. I can do a one-on-one game that feels like the other person is playing a ye-olde text adventure with me on the other side rather than a program. But making those guys move was like herding cats, I swear...±KnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 00:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel weird admitting this, but I would probably like LARPing if I could get over my insecurities. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda like the way Bill O'Reilly calls a lot of mainstream stuff "far left".

More seriously, the poster seems to think we don't study things enough and fall back on mocking sarcasm at least outside of scientific subjects. Well, OK, but there are times when...--WickerGuy (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your fluent use of their specialized jargon in that thread, Gerard. Are you omniwikipresent or something?

They certainly have a point in their criticism, but I think it's mostly just the fault of our small community and large goal. As we grow, we will have more debate and hashing-out of articles, rather than domination by one person or another.--talk 21:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to use not just the jargon, but the internal links to old Sequence posts - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream views? A wiki project incorporates the voices of more than one subset of people. LessWrong has a community that is very' homogeneous in opinion, to the point where there's a pretty high learning curve to really mesh well with them. I wouldn't call RationalWiki 'mainstream,' as we still are (mostly) composed to rationalists, skeptics, freethinkers, etc. which is a very not-mainstream subset of people. If LessWrong is composed of mostly squares (maybe a few oddball rectangles too, but they may get laughed at for sometimes not knowing math), we're a community of trapezoids, encompassing not just squares but also rectangles, trapezoids, and general rhombuses. We all have four sides, but that's really it. And then there are the few triangles that wander in and out and rant and rave on talk pages about various goofy things that we also don't permaban.

I think it's wrong to call us somehow 'mainstream' as a pejorative when really it comes down to them being more specific and narrow in scope than us. By our nature as a wiki, we're going to be a somewhat varied population. If 'not being all the same' is mainstream, then I just don't know... ±KnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 22:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Every time I go on Less Wrong I remember why I don't go on Less Wrong. Apart from the pompous arrogance where so many like minds reinforce an incredibly narrow world view they lack joy, they lack fun (they probably lack seasons in the sun). They badly need an Ace. Bad Faith (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you just compare us to Flatland? pathetic 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't read Flatland yet, but it's on my reading list. Anyway, it amuses me to read the entire thread of that thread: some guy dismisses us because we sound like 'mainstream academia.' I wonder if he realizes that other people who toss out the discussion and conclusions of the research community at large are primarily woo-meisters and goofballs who deny the wealth of discussed and constantly tested, refuted, and modified (as if the academic community actually thinks one thing in anything but the most conclusive cases! What a load of garbage! They disagree and retest and re-research each other all the time!) information in order to keep their own self-gratifying opinions. ±KnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 15:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

LW is like an alternative music club. Everyone's there just to be outside the mainstream and define themselves by that one attribute, but really, they've just created a mainstream of their own. In many respects, almost every social groups is a bit like that, although I don't think RW really uses "mainstream" as a pejorative like that (not that I recall, at least). Anyway, it's the sort of thing that's proud to be on the fringe for the sake of being on the fringe, but some of the more well-read posters can see through that - like the post that states LW philosophy is just a slight rehash of Wittgenstein and Quine. That's something I'm inclined to agree with, it's very similar stuff but written in a way that's more accessible to people with science backgrounds than backgrounds in philosophical waffling. bomination 15:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't they come to the conclusion that it was Google's first start-up attempt? Or was that a weird dream I had last night? I do seem to remember a number of nubile Greeks…--Jabba de Chops 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I particularly love the verbiage they use in their stories, like this one from this morning. It's not on the transcript so you'll have to listen to it to hear it, but I think it's awesome he says "a statement attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke" instead of "Jesus' teachings" or something like that. Cow...Hammertime! 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you. If Obama loses like Gore did because of a spoiler effect, words cannot express how angry I will get. At least Nader was unarguably more progressive than Gore. Paul, however, is the most radical right winger in 75 years! It makes sense if you think about it. He's farther to the right on Romney on every issue; abortion, taxes, health care, you name it. What? Something about wars? Oh wait, he has the exact fucking same thing his fellow Republican Senators are saying.

If any of you supporters of Ron Paul are here, explain to me how Obama is anywhere near as bad as Romney when it comes to the presidency. And don't give me that crap about how "they're the same". They're not. You may not care about issues like universal health care or gay rights, but don't lie and claim that Romney and Obama are anywhere near the same there. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As of now, it appears Paul has the youth vote (and enthusiasm) Obama had and Romney covets. But Paul will not make a third party bid. nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)His supporters will write him in on his ballot. But there are even worse consequences of Ron Paul's bid. His influence on the youth vote will have a horrible impact on future generations. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul's talking unequivocally two things they like: (1) jobs and (2) no foreign wars. Simplistic? Perhaps. Appealing? Undoubtedly to today's disillusioned youth. And both Obama & Romney can't really modify or adjust their stand. In the end however, the youth demographic has to either return to the fold with Obama or lodge a protest and take a gamble with Romney (status quo vs change). nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me if not everybody of my gneration is smart enough to vote; i sort of like the idea i get to fake decide things. --il'DictatorMikal 02:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question; why is it in most states 18 yr olds cant be trusted to make decisions for themselves like purchasing liquor, but can be trusted to make decision that affect the rest of us like voting? nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You do know why they wont let 18 year old buy liquor right robby? --il'DictatorMikal 02:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm from a state where the brewery & Tavernkeepers lobby is strong and has allowed 18 yr olds to drink since the 26th Amendment was passed. The argument then was if you were old enough to get drafted and die for you country, you sure as fuck were old enough to buy a drink. Restrictions on that were always viewed sort of a Southern Baptist wp:WCTU thing. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am gonna call bullshit on Mr Anon's repeal of the 26th amendment comment. Bethcha he was OK with it when the majority voted for Obama but when they want to switch up there voting bloc should be removed? AceModerator 02:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So... how does your state do with that Federal act saying the national age is 21, any lower nets you a decrease in funding?--il'DictatorMikal 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason the feds ran that fight to raise the drinking age was to keep booze out of high schools. Sad but true. PS, I never "turned the drinking age" anywhere, due to the weirdness of changing ages of opportunity. ħuman 03:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

MADD had something to do with it, too. They forced lower blood alcohol levels for the highway money as well. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a teenager, yes. However, Mikalos (I presume) and I are part of an unfortunately small minority of our age group. In any case, I'm not that serious about my comment, and I acknowledge that it can never happen. But I will continue to oppose attempts by people like Dennis Kucinich to lower the voting age further to something like 16. I don't care whether the youth are simply misinformed; that will just balance out. I do care whether they are easily swayed by rhetoric by people like Ron Paul. I acknowledge the negative impact it will have on Democratic candidates, but (unfortunately) most people that young should not have the capabilities to shift an entire nation based on passions. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, even under the best of circumstances, voter participation rates in the 18-24 yr old group never is above 25%. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

most people that young should not have the capabilities to shift an entire nation based on passions. Then you might want to stop Christians voting too. Oh, and the elderly. In fact anyone that votes out of passion or is confused by the rhetoric. Also, you'll have to raise the age in which you can join the army because you can't, with a straight face, have people fighting a war they have no choice to vote on. AceModerator 02:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't seriously proposing a repeal of the 26th amendment. However, I was saying that I opposed attempts to lower the voting age to something like 16. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The youth vote is offset by the 68 million retiring wp:Baby boomers with a much higher voter participation rate that won't be affected by unemployment if the U.S borrows another $4 trillion from China to keep the Social Security checks flowing, and would stomp the 18-24 year old vote if they told their Congressional members to raise the payroll to tax to 15% when the U.S. suffers further credit downgrades, can't borrow anymore, and has to raise taxes to keep the checks flowing. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Luckily for things like equal rights; the old folks dont live for to long after retirement. --il'DictatorMikal 02:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When SS started, retirement age was 62. Life expectancy was 62. Today life expectancy is at least 10 years beyond full retirement benefit age, many living much longer. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

should we get rid of it? werent you gloating you;d get to relax on our dime? --il'DictatorMikal 03:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note Rob, best not to use life expectancies for things like this. Life expectancy is always skewed by infant mortality rate. Generally even back then, if you lived to be 60, you would probably live to be at least 70 or 80 or older before pushing daisies. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a chance of making it to the upper 80's or early 90's if my grandfather is any indication.--il'DictatorMikal 03:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to life in the 1930s. Now, with increases in medicine (hopefully) within the next 25 years, we will both live well into our 100s, if not beyond. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Anon, true about the skew. WP says there's 76 million baby boomers. Let's do some quick calculations: if the adult workforce today is 134 million with a 63% participation rate, that means there's approximately 212 million adults, 35% between the ages of 67 and 48 years of age. Even if we average the 76 million retiring between 2007 and 2026, that's approximately 4 million per year, give or take (see chart). The population of the US grew 32 million over the past 13 years, or roughly only 2.5 million per year. That means for everyone 4 workers leaving the workforce and collecting social security, there's only 2.5 workers to support them. If the minimum benefit today is $600 per month, those four would draw combined $2400 monthly from 2.5 workers, each worker individually paying about $960 per month to support the old farts, about $50 a day.

But yeah I agree the retirement age could be boosted a bit. Also the payroll tax cap should be removed for people making over $250,000 (above that it should be a flat tax rather than a regressive tax). These two things are a balanced approach, cutting spending while raising revenue, while not significantly hurting benefits. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There just are not the many paying above $200K (I saw the the figure recently in one of our discussions). And the AP reported last week the average SS retirement benefit is over $1000. SS Disability fund is to go broke in the next Presidential term (2016), whoever it is. Those benefits are over $1000 per month as well.

But the larger point I'm making is, it is young people who get fucked in lost jobs and job opportunities caused by big deficits, and the retiring baby boomers over the next twenty years, unaffected by unemployment, could give a shit about the problems of younger workers if their Social Security benefits are threatened to be cut off. These boomers are gonna become socialists in a massive way, and they will be able to stomp younger workers at the ballot box for whatever it takes to get full access to their paychecks for healthcare, retirement, foodstamps, housing, prescription drugs, whatever. 65 year old plus has always had the highest voter participation rate (80%, well over the national average) and they exist now in greater numbers as a percentage of the voting public bigger than ever before. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Maybe I'm just reading this too early after waking up, but what on earth makes you think that the retirement age crowd ever votes anything resembling left, let alone "socialist"? Q0 (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What Rob means by socialist is not what most of us would recognise as a correct use of the term. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 09:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the word, but about applying it to the US elections as if somehow they're going to prop up some super left wing candidate. What are you suggesting is going to happen even if somehow we end up with retirees trending toward socialism? I can't see anything more than the AARP lobbying to keep/improve their benefits, which is what they already do. And of course, the Republican party is so far to the right that they even attack the AARP for that, despite the fact that most those members are the exact same social conservatives the party caters to in the first place. Q0 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, oh nobby one, you say horay for death panels. Well

Life expectancy France (socialised medicine and therefore death panels) - 81.1 years

Life expectancy UK (socialised medicine and therefore death panels) - 80.1 years

Life expectancy USA (privatised medicine and therefore no death panels) - 78.1 years

All figures from World Bank. Bloody death panels aren't working hard enough. Bad Faith (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Paul is the best candidate of the ones who have run. Obama and Romney share something: they both believe in big government. Romney just believes some different things economically. It's obvious both are proponents of socialized medicine of some form: look at ObamaCare and RomneyCare, with both giving more control to the governemnt regarding health care. And don't start on how Obama's against wars and torture: he kept American soldiers in Afghanistan and will do so. He passed the NDAA, which gives the President the right to brand any US citizen a terrorist. He reappointed a crazy Bush drug czar. Obama is pretty much the same as Romney or any other Republican candidate with some variation regarding things such as social issues and medicine. Ron Paul actually wants to see the federal government shrink, though I don't agree with his ideas regarding state government and abortion. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha good one. You did a spot-on impression of a 14-year-old Paulbot. Cow...Hammertime! 15:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Q0: This is a longterm demographic trend we're speaking of. The above WP subsection link about the 76 million bb'ers is worth reading. What many younger voters do not comprehend is, the Baby boom generation is a very peculiar anomaly to any society or culture -- having nearly 25% of an entire nation born within 10 years. As a kid I read in the wp:Weekly Reader, baby boomers will be like a boa constrictor swallowing a pig, a big bulge passing through its digestive system over our lifespan. Sure, as 4 million boomers retire each year, that reduces unemployment and creates job vacancies for the 2.5 million entering the workforce. But it is unlikely wages & living standards will rise in any proportion to make it easy for young workers to both enjoy comfortable living standards as in the past, and pay our promised retirement benefits. And unlike income transfers under Stalin, baby boomers got younger workers beat at the ballot box, hands down.

Now, there is another peculiar demographic among boomers, they are historically disunited politically, largely the legacy of the Vietnam war. A division between anti-war protestors and regular patriots. We saw this division still exists in the 2004 Presidential election, Kerry vs Bush. But by the time all 70 million no longer are employable, and still vote, I expect these divisions will once and for all finally vanish. nobsCorporations are people, too. 17:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

NOBODY MOVE! I shall take down the Paul supporter myself.

"It's obvious both are proponents of socialized medicine of some form: look at ObamaCare and RomneyCare, with both giving more control to the governemnt regarding health care. "

Unfortunately, neither is socialized medicine. All the bills do is provide oversight, not control, of private health insurance companies. This results in better quality of care for patients, while maximizing freedom of choice (in fact, Obamacare actually aims to increase competition in health insurance markets).

"And don't start on how Obama's against wars and torture: he kept American soldiers in Afghanistan and will do so."

Obama ended torture in US military prisons, including waterboarding (note: this happened to be something he and McCain agreed with, so let's not act as though Ron Paul has any unique point of view on this matter). US soldiers are withdrawing from Afghanistan as we speak.

"He passed the NDAA, which gives the President the right to brand any US citizen a terrorist."

The NDAA, contrary to popular belief, does not grant this power. After hearing concerns, Carl Levin (a very progressive Senator) added in specific language to not change any existing law on this matter. This was partially the result of Obama's veto threat. (Note: claims that Obama requested indefinite detention powers often rely on Levin being quoted out of context.)

"He reappointed a crazy Bush drug czar."

Meh. Drugs are hardly a major issue the federal government is facing.

"Obama is pretty much the same as Romney or any other Republican candidate with some variation regarding things such as social issues and medicine."

I find it troubling how you make a big deal out of the drug thing but downplay "things such as social issues and medicine". It is very important whether Medicare is privitized or not. It is very important that issues like Climate Change are addressed. Gay rights is the most important issue for millions of Americans. While state governments can make accomplishments, the only way to move to country as a whole forward is at a federal level (compare to Lincoln, who through the emancipation proclamation single-handidly turned the country from being extremely racist to having an anti-slavery vision).

"Ron Paul actually wants to see the federal government shrink, though I don't agree with his ideas regarding state government and abortion. "

You forget the fundamental problem with "wanting to see the federal government shrink". While seeing $1 trillion being cut from the budget in a single year might feel good, most economists agree that the effects would be disastrous on the economy. It makes sense that the government spends more in a recession: normally, a free market is fueled by consumer spending, so when consumers are forced to save their money, the government should pump money into the economy to make up. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's also make something clear: Ron Paul's only main distinguishing policy from the rest of the Republicans is being pro-drug legalization. A few months ago you might categorize him as being the only anti-war guy, but Gingrich and Santorum have conceded that issue as well, and Romney doesn't make any major speeches about keeping troops in Afghanistan longer. All he talks about now in foreign policy is whining about Bin Laden and other minor stuff. 6 months ago, I would have conceded that Ron Paul is good to have around as an alternative viewpoint, and would have favored him running as a third party. Now, his only saving grace (war issues) have lost meaning due to the Iraq War ending and Afghanistan War cooling down. 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm about as far left as he is far right, I wouldn't actually support Ron Paul. But there are some errors here that bug me either way.

Obama on torture and terrorism: Conceal Bush-era crimes using executive privilege; not close Guantanamo Bay; state so-called objection to torture, yet it continues as seen in the case of Bradley Manning, among others; executes not only anyone branded a terrorist, anywhere in the world, but also US citizens - without due process. --- I certainly don't see how Obama's claim of not indefinitely detaining US citizens means anything in the face of the above. The fact is, if the president believes you're supporting AQ, the Taliban, or 'related groups' you can expect to either be detained for years until the government decides to make a case against you, or to be flat out killed.

Obama on war: Even if you only restrict this to specific 'named' wars, you still have to deal with both Libya and the fact that there will be a significant, continued US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. Realistically, though, Obama continues to wage 'war' with drone strikes in the areas he can't hit with the usual destructive tools of war. It's very important to note that he hasn't actually changed the US government stance on this at all, and things have proceeded as planned.

Of course, I'm a stupid American voter, so just as I voted for him in 2008, I'll do it again this year. Lesser of evils and all that nonsense. Q0 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama has political reasons for not extensively pursuing Bush's war crimes, but to my knowledge he has released Bush's torture memos. Bradley Manning's "torture" is at most mistreatment. Certainly nothing like the way Bush treated detainees. I am currently debating AD over Al-Awlaki's assassination; it's not really unprecedented though, since Bin Laden had missiles fired after his ass during Clintons term and US citizens actively at war with the United States have been killed during the Civil War and World War II. You are welcome to comment on that debate if you want, but at the very least, the points the Ron Paul supporter raised specifically, like the NDAA, are not valid.

Libya divides Americans on both the left and the right. I wouldn't call "US presence" anything like a war; we have "US presence" in Germany and Japan 70 years after WWII. The reason is because those countries want us there for some backup, not that we want to continue fighting. The only US troops that will be left are advisers. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I agree Obama could do better in that area, but that's no reason to favor candidates like Ron Paul, who have terrible foreign policy proposals (just look at H.R. 3076). Mr. Anon (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The same is true regarding your position on US presence overseas - other countries certainly do not want us there. If they were offered the option of removing US military bases, with absolute assurances that it would not turn US opinion and policy against them in the slightest, do you think they would refuse? Do you not think they ask themselves regularly 'Are we truly a sovereign state, or just a protectorate'? Q0 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul is perhaps a bigger wp:isolationist than Pat Buchanan. While Buchanan is a tiny tiny spokesman for that sentiment in the GOP, Ron Paul has always had the Libertarian Party (a party with a 50 state national base) behind him which holds isolationism as a mainstay. This is another contradiction in Paul's positions, while he allegedly is an economic genius, the realities of international trade and monetary policy don't quite square with his absolute isolationist stance. nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoever performed the job has botched it: current search defaults seem to be main, conservapedia talk and essay talk.

Could we please stop making decisions because some people have insights on how a wiki has to look like? Could we please introduce some facts? It should be possible to have a list of the most-searched subjects here at RationalWiki. This would show how many CP-related items get searched, and how convenient or inconvenient a change of the defaults is.

Anybody who wanted to object to the deconservapedification should have done it back when the articles were being deleted. --il'DictatorMikal 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not about the deconservapedification, this is about search defaults. larronsicutfurinnocte 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I consider anything that moves us from conservapedia to be "deconservapedification". --il'DictatorMikal 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes your advice Anybody who wanted to object to the deconservapedification should have done it back when the articles were being deleted a little bit hard to follow. larronsicutfurinnocte 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really; at this point the machines already in motion; having destroyed a lot of articles, we now hunt down the rest of the CP stuff, and it was decided search really didnt need CP in it by default. --il'DictatorMikal 21:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

having destroyed, hunt down , where the hell do I read such phrases regularly... larronsicutfurinnocte 22:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

do not mock my word choice, wikipolitics is boring, it needs to sound like something actually happened that wasnt just 8 or so people voting--il'DictatorMikal 22:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are here at RationalWiki and prefer not to be mocked for your word choice? O-kay...

As for it was decided: humbug! It was talked about a little bit, then it was done as sloppily as possible. And what about the intelligent comment: Include the RW space by default as that has the SB and the WIGOs. Sounds like a good idea to me. larronsicutfurinnocte 22:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The searches do seem to default to main + talk:cp + talk:essay, when (based on the previous random bar chat) it should probably be main + talk:main. I also agree with the point that people might actually come here for CP material, and thus maybe possibly search for it. Science could be done, even. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Default should be Main only. Site visitors will most likely be looking for articles, + not everyone who reads wikis like WP is familiar with the talk page structure, so including talk pages in searches may just be confusing. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 07:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, conservapedia talk and essay talk shouldn't be in there by default. But besides main we should include RationalWiki (because of the wigos at least) - and IMO Conservapedia. larronsicutfurinnocte 07:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now—that is to say, only 'main' is selected by default. Though we may want to add 'Conservapedia' and maybe 'Essays' to the "Content pages | Multimedia | Help and Project pages | Discussions | Everything | Advanced" group/quick options already offered. It's a pity you can't select categories rather than just complete namespaces...or can you? Peterwith added ‼Science‼ 07:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure either, so I exercised my mighty IT skills to find this on Wikipedia. Put incategory:category_name_here after your search. A menu could probably be made, if anybody's inclined to do all that HTML/CSS/wikicode. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 09:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not fixed - searches I do are still defaulting to main, essay talk and CP talk. Where is this actually configured? edit: looks like it's a job for Trent - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to break with others here. We all make mistakes when we are children, and Romney doesn't have to be haunted by one that he made nearly 50 years ago. What do others think? Mr. Anon (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that past mistakes shouldn't haunt us... but the key part is if he's given us evidence that he's actually changed or not. Not to mention that if he did this, he was likely raised with a culture that encourages that behavior... and one's culture is very often for life. So I can't say I can dismiss it entirely. Do I expect him to act like a homophobic child? No. Do I expect his behavior to be that of someone who grew up in a culture that encourages homophobic children? Yes. ±KnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 05:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how his "culture" is relevant to the question at hand; either he is a bully or he is not, and as far as such essentials go, people never change. ListenerXTalkerX 05:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Cultures change, and people also do. Look at Robert Byrd as an example. I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Romney is not homophobic. During his debate with Ted Kennedy, he talked about how Boy Scouts should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. To my knowledge he favors Civil Unions for gay couples. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's like this. A common example is religion. Say you are born into a religious household, you follow religious values, you live your life based on the lives of your parents and friends. That is your personal culture, formed of your demographic, your peer group, your location in the world, your wealth level, etc— intersectionality at work. This hardly ever changes, and leaving this culture is very difficult without a conscious rejection. Example: many religious people who become atheists have to then deal with the fact that their personal culture was set up on religious-based ideas, and they have to form a new identity for themselves that isn't. Unless Romney has had some epiphany and conscious rejection in his life of this behavior, it's likely that he still carries the effects of being raised in such a way that encourages this. Sociology, yo. ±KnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 05:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to focus on something more objective than "culture": A bully is a bully, no matter whom his "culture" or anything else tells him to victimize at any given moment.

This hardly ever changes, and leaving this culture is very difficult without a conscious rejection. Or, to rephrase: People never leave the culture they were raised in, unless they do. ListenerXTalkerX 05:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Rephrase of rephrase: "People hardly leave the culture they were raised in, unless they become aware of it and realize they have a choice to at all." For many people, the way they do things is just the way things are done. This understandably causes problems when that 'way' isn't really in line with reality. ±KnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 05:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. People drift away from their old practices all the time as they age and their life circumstances change. For example, were it not for the cultural drift of a number of Minnesotans over the past several decades, I would be a baptized member of the WELS. ListenerXTalkerX 05:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)The fact that all Romney could manage, after initially pulling a Murdoch and claiming no memory of the event, was, '...And if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize.…' . That's a classic politician's non-apology apology. Their PR manager has told them this story isn't washing well with the public, but the politician in question is still firmly convinced that what he did was nothing more than youthful hi-jinks. And in that one non-apology apology Romney has probably shown more of his true self than he ever has before in public.--Jabba de Chops 05:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The "It was his culture/the way things are done" has never worked as an arguement, because your still going to be jusged f0or doing something shitty; as seen with brx's drama last night. --il'DictatorMikal 05:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Anon. It's a silly distraction, non-criminal, and whatever reflection it might have on his character is washed away by the many years since. There are a thousand far better reasons not to elect Romney.--talk 05:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Non-criminal". Not really, not if the facts are as reported. Criminal assault at a minimum, damage to property and unlawful imprisonment maybe.--Jabba de Chops 10:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

True! I meant that he was not arrested or charged or anything.--talk 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I would, I am sorry to say, almost rather be governed by Reds who are not bullies than by bullies of my political persuasion. ListenerXTalkerX 05:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, everyone can change, and I agree with that fact to a degree that most people would take issue with. However, this story is relevant because it shows Romney was brought up in an authoritarian gay-bashing environment (and he was apparently quite active on the later front) - an environment he has clearly embraced to this day, given he is the current forerunner of the US Republican party. When he shows actual departure from those ideas, I'll be the first to set aside his past. Q0 (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. That he describes in 2012 (not the 1960s) a violent assault as a "prank" or "hijinks" is somewhat problematic - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to call it outright homophobic; yeah, the guy was rumored to be gay, but remember this was in the late 1950s, during the beat generation. So the thing against the long hair probably seems more related to that. Mr. Anon (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter why he bullied. Nothing suggests he really took it seriously then or now. his "appology" was flippant and included the line "I don't even remember it happening, but if it did..." Yes, people do change from when they are kids, but they talk about those changes, and who they are today and what made them change. It's usually some kind of epiphany that everyone can be hurt, or you and your money are not better, etc. Not one thing romney has done suggests he's had that conversation with himself. Godot 18:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote someone I heard on the radio yesterday, "I think we learned something fundamental about Mitt Romney from this." While I slightly disagree with LX - I think sometimes people do change from being bullies or change into bullies - I think it's pretty clear that Mittens hasn't changed. AcerBlue 19:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hanging's too good for them if they are guilty. Seems a weird situation - guy has 17 kids FFS. Probably cooked up a plan to reduce maintenance payments and claim insurance. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If something is either in a closed group or, more generally, behind something that requires an account to see (so otherwise public, but a pain to view), is it acceptable to just WIGO an internal link like so, or will people just down-vote it into oblivion for not being "proper"? bomination 15:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow through the hat-tip to the Conspiracy Theorists Say The Darndest Things group, the vinegar party has been the talk of the day. moral 16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It'll be funny if the cops show up at his house to investigate the spike in electricity usage (which usually means someone's using grow lights), and he thinks they're there as tools of the Conspiracy. Godspeed (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd thing: in my experience the chemtrail people have overlapped heavily with the climate change deniers, so by this logic thousands of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere can't affect climate, but boiling a gallon of vinegar can make it stop raining. Brilliant. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat curious about the general opinion of Charles from those in the countries hes going to eventually take over the spot of "monarch" for; As mostly ive heard negative to some praise about him.--il'DictatorMikal 06:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got an assignment at school about Bisphenol A, one of those nasty chemicals that's supposed to mimic hormones. The assignment is to investigate a "scientific controversy" (the only alternative was Phthalates, a rather similar topic) and draw conclusions. Trouble is, I can't find much information from the usual suspects—skeptical sites and what have you. Can anyone direct me to the secret stash of skeptical material showing how it's all bullshit, or alternatively inform me that I've been taken in by paid industry shills into thinking that there probably isn't anything to worry about? Peterwith added ‼Science‼ 07:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. The Wikipedia article is a complete mess and nothing useful can be gleaned from it. First of all, I would find some data on what is the expected level of intake of BPA from the leaching of a polycarbonate bottle. All the effects listed in the wiki article might be true, but if the typical exposure is far lower than the level at which an effect was observed, it means very little.

Now regarding effects: BPA has estrogenic activity, but it is weak. There are low levels of natural estrogen-mimicking compounds in many foods, including soy, so this in itself is not a big cause for concern. There is some rather strong evidence that BPA could cause obesity if fed to small children. That being said, all the data we have is from animal models and in vitro studies, and furthermore there is still some uncertainty (for example, in female rats which had their ovaries removed, BPA actually causes a reduction in body weight).

A lot of the sentiment against BPA is stemming from a desire to find a reductionist cause of the "obesity epidemic", when in fact its causes are cultural. This red herring is mentioned even in scientific reviews. --Tweenk (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A good portion of the BPA panic can also be found in a series of chain e-mails about plastics: specifically chemical leaking from plastic bottles into liquids. It got a lot of exposure because one of the iterations of the email name-dropped Sheryl Crow and her breast cancer. It warns against no plastic bottles in any kind of heat, such as microwaves or a hot car, etc. The specific chemical was once 'dioxins' but once BPA really was found to leak from some polycarbonate bottles (recycling number 7 only; hard plastic bottles such as baby bottles or intended re-usable bottles) that got inserted instead when it circulates in recent years, unfortunately making the Snopes article a bit out of date. So far, this is the only study I can find regarding estrogen-mimicking activity in plastic bottles (yes, it does mention bisphenol). ±KnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 13:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is also a lot of information about BPA in the reviews linked from the Wikipedia article, but not directly relevant to the problem of leaching from bottles.

Regarding Genghis Khant's suggestion: BPA is an ingredient of polycarbonate resins, which are used for baby milk bottles, CDs and DVDs, impact resistant glass (e.g. in sport helmets), optics (e.g. photographic lens and corrective glasses) and some reusable plastic containers. Soda bottles are made from poly(ethylene terephthalate) – PET, which is a different animal. --Tweenk (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

While doing some research I stumbled upon the cateogory "right-populist organizations" in the German Wikipedia, to my surpirise not only are there such organizations in there like the English Defense League, Bürger in Wut ("Citizens in Rage") from Bremen and Pro-NRW (the regional German masters of unfounded islamophobia, who have recently made "satires" of Mohamed and Islam not just in public space but in front of Mosques) and... the Tea Party movement. Now while the EDL, BiW and Pro-NRW are very clearly racist the Tea Party case for being racist is harder to make. In fact, I'm not sure if this is absolutely right, or aboslutely stupid.

For shits and giggles I looked whether there is such a category as "left-populist organizations" — no such thing exists. But, Occupy is put into the anti-globalisation category together with such organisations as attac, the EZLN, World Social Forum and Indymedia. Am I way to Americanized by now or does that seem unfair? Yes, sure there are racists in the Tea Party, but Roseanne Barr is an important figure in the occupy movement and she said something about killing (other) millionaires being and option... I'm confused… --Raga Man (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There're certainly instances of racism in a bunch of their protests, and probably their anti-immigration goals, but I don't think they have any "openly" racist positions. I really don't see them as a solid (or even existent) entity, though. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 17:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Right-wing populist" doesn't necessary have to mean racist. I'm more concerned about the Tea Party movement being defined as an "organisation" when it's more of a meme used by various groups and events, some elements of which are associated with racism and some of which aren't. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What Weaseloid said. Right-wing populist ≠ racist. "Left-wing populism" sounds like an oxymoron to me, since I understand that populism is defined as the imposition of an authoritarian rule on a democracy by 'bribing' the lower classes of society with popular promises. --Tweenk (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I fucked up the tranlation so that Americans are getting something different from it than what is actually meant. In German "populism" is not an ideology but a style of politics. It's hard to define, but it basically entails a lowering to the most common denominator. Often simple solution that would never work for very complex problems. As this is the main defintion it is very much possible that there's populism on any side of the spectrum. Also, the German "Organisation" is much looser than the English "organisation", but there really isn't one good English word for it. It doesn't necessarily have a legal status and can basicly mean "a bunch of people doing different stuff over time with some kind of order combined by a common goal". For example, the overall Occupy movement is not an organisation in German, but the single city ones are — even though there is no clear command structure or even a clear modus operandi and they have no legal body - an organisation for Germans. --Raga Man (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Populism in the U.S. too is a style not an ideology, and not necessarily authoritarian. Any appeal to the common people against an elite (however defined) is populism. Also, what Nebuchadnezzar said - there are many notable left-wing populists. The religious right uses populist appeals to "family values" against a "[Hollywood/San Francisco/whatever] elite". The Occupy movement talking about the 99% versus the 1% is using a populist appeal. Right-wing populism is a catch-all term for movements on the right that use anti-elite appeals to the common people but don't fit neatly into harder-right categories like Fascist or Nazi. One thing I've found useful for distinguishing populism of the right and left is right-wing populists appeal to the common people against both an elite, and against threats from below. So, simultaneously ranting against the Hollywood or San Francisco elite, Disney, Wall Street, etc and against "welfare queens", homeless, illegal immigrants, and ACORN. By contrast left-wing populists include those "below" as part of the common people, hence homeless people and the suburban middle class trying to make house payments are all part of the same 99% to the Occupy movement. There's a populism of the center too: see Eric Hoffer's appeals to anti-intellectualism and the apolitical working man up against ideological elites of the left and right. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, I'm starting to think that basing your thoughts on the Armageddon on the archaeological findings of an ancient civilization is pretty stupid. But earthquakes and murders and starvation and bad things are happening, so the end of the world must be close. Nihilist 19:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)